I guess the excuse for Mike McQueary is that he's a coward with an IQ of 53. I seriously don't get why he wasn't shredded on the witness stand.
Last edited:
Ex PSU player Justin Williams with Ziegler
- Thread starter NoBareFeet
- Start date
No excuses necessary. It's no mistake none of them were charged with anything. MM became the scapegoat by JoeBots because he didn't keep quiet after he saw Sandusky molest the child.
You hate MM because he took down Joe in your mind but in reality Joe did himself in. All juries believed him too.
Do you have any idea how stupid and crazy you are? Obviously not.
It's not Joe's fault. He met his legal obligation
I think everyone including himself admits/acknowledges he wishes he had done more.
Everyone dropped the ball even those that met their legal obligation
I'm saying more than that it wasn't Joe's fault. I'm saying that MM didn't give an explicit report of sexual assault to his dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, or Shultz. A number of people seem to believe that MM never told his family that night (or ever) but he did tell Joe, Curley, and Shultz. All five of those people told similar stories about what MM told them so I'm inclined to believe them.
I don't think MM was making things up. I think he "experienced" something that he found troubling but he didn't actually see it so he wasn't sure what it was. I think he gave a soft report because he didn't want to accuse JS falsely. I'm confident in that opinion and it's further reinforced by a few things. 1) JS was found not guilty of rape that night, 2) MM admitted that he used soft language with Joe, and 3) MM's email response to the AG was that she made false claims in the GJ presentment.
I think Joe understood that MM experienced something he found troubling. I just don't think he interpreted it to be anything overly sexual. I know he said that with the benefit of hindsight he wishes he done more but to be honest I'm not sure what more he should have done.
I think C&S made a huge error in judgement. Even though I think they received a soft report it was their duty to document exactly what MM told them and the reasons for their response. Even decent size organization has a whistleblower policy and C&S obviously didn't follow it. If they had there would be no question about what MM actually told them. I think they handled it outside the system because it was Jerry and there's no excuse for that.
Don't need to. Joe admitted he was told it was sexual. That is an automatic report to the police. Not horseplay but CSA.
Joe was the moral leader at PSU and held himself out as such. While he passed the buck and so avoided jail that got CSS, he did fail morally to do what he should have. That will always be a stain on his legacy. Kids paid for that.
MM told Joe enough to morally mandate he insure that the police were notified. The testimony supports that MM told CSS and Joe more than he told his family and since CSS and Joe (for protection) were who MM had to work with to resolve the issue, then it is understandable he did not want to involve his family who could do nothing to remedy the case. I think MM thought he saw anal r*pe and it freaked him out. Sandusky was convicted of all counts involving victim 8 except for deviant sexual intercourse because MM did not see insertion which he couldn't given the angle of view. Nevertheless, he believed that is what he saw and he told CSS and Joe and they covered it up. Joe should have demanded that Sandusky be reported to the police/CYS and told Curley that. Instead, he participated in the decision not to report Sandusky and moved on. Kids paid. CSS got theirs in jail but Joe got off because he passed the buck and then died soon after it blew up. So now Joe must pay posthumously through his reputation being tarnished forever.
Football coaches make poor gods.Do you have any idea how stupid and crazy you are? Obviously not.
What an imbecile. New name, same old spins and crap.
Pitiots make great Imbeciles.
I agree he used soft language with Joe and probably most people. Based on Joe's own words though...he knew it was sexual. Your last paragraph is dead on.
I'm not blaming Joe. He'd have been not guilty in any trial. I just think it makes us (as a fan base) look like we're defending Joe out of loyalty when we say he didn't know it was sexual. His testimony says otherwise.
As to what he could have done...if we're being real Joe was the most powerful person in town. He could have done anything. He followed the law though. 100% but lots of people involved likely wish they did more. Including MM
The homespun garbage of the many name troll continues to pollute threads.
We have some who come here, to support and contribute? No, to denigrate and slur. Multiple personalities, baiting, emoji stalking and imbecilic nonsense.
Obsessed with Joe and Penn State, crazed by them. They accuse posters of needing mental help, but who really needs it?
The stalkers and emoji turds.
Obsessed with Joe and Penn State, crazed by them. They accuse posters of needing mental help, but who really needs it?
The stalkers and emoji turds.
Agreed that Mike was not making things up. Far and away the most logical explanation is that Mike witnessed Jerry in the shower with a kid, and he thought it was weird. He reported it. It wasn't until years later when an overzealous prosecution came and told him that Jerry was a serial pedophile that he reinterpreted what he saw. Simple as that.
That's certainly a possibility.
- IIRC MM said he saw Sandusky’s hands wrapped around a 10-12 yr old boy’s waist with the boy facing a wall and his hands on it.
- I also recall that MM testified that he had a limited view through a mirror.
- The inference was anal rape but MM also said that the boy was running around and in no obvious distress. If a 10-12 year old boy was raped he would certainly be distressed.
- Sandusky was found not guilty on that particular charge.
He also said he never witnessed anal rape.
IIRC his words are that he didn't see insertion. He didn't rule out that happened but like I said the boy would have been in distress if it did happen.
Distress requiring medical attention, not burying the face in a pillow and crying.
A small clarification: JS was convicted of felony indecent assault for the incident that Mike McQueary observed, in addition to lesser offenses like unlawful contact with minors. I apologize for the lurid detail, but a felony indecent assault conviction of that grading requires the jury to have found that JS forcefully touched the victim’s intimate area with JS’ sexual organ, and that the victim was under 13 years old.
He was acquitted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a minor, the most serious charge, largely because MM was not able to definitively testify as to insertion. But the felony indecent assault conviction for that incident would be fairly interpreted as a “child sexual assault conviction” under most folks’ understanding of what a sexual assault is.
Wasn't it later established that Jerry had been diagnosed with ED and it was impossible for him to be engaged in any sodomy?
Not really, or at least not in a way that I think would be overly persuasive or definitive. I don’t believe he has ever presented any contemporaneous evidence or medical records from the actual time of the assaults about that sort of medical condition. He did have some medical records from 2008 where he was diagnosed with various thyroid and prostate/low testosterone issues, but those records claim that the acute issues started in around 2005, and that he hadn’t experienced the problems in a meaningful way prior to that. Which obviously wouldn’t cover most of the Penn State-related abuse timeline.
He was also a 65 year old man in 2008 with a family history of prostate issues, which is about the time where it isn’t unusual to have urinary, low testosterone, thyroid and prostate issues start popping up in earnest. In any case, unless I’ve totally missed something, I don’t see any contemporaneous evidence, records, etc. from the 1998-2002 period that would indicate that he would be physically unable to do the things he was convicted of. It’s not impossible, sure, but that’s far from it being established.
Wastecoast24, get the clyster and use ion yourself and your other names.
Chimbo, ohhh then J ove$6 dajhf high in gbvccvbb eeeeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeeeeee ….
The "empty building" part in '98 isn't true, there was even another coach in the locker room/shower facility, as noted at #7 in Seasock's report. I'm not an attorney, but I'm thinking a competent legal team with time to prepare might have even presented this coach as a witness at trial.
If true, then I need to revise my statement to...
He showered naked with a kid in a nearly empty building after a very light workout...after getting called out on it, he was so shook that he said that he wished he were dead. Then a few years later, was again caught showering naked with a kid in an empty building at night. To simply characterize that as "some" boundary issues is really minimizing what happened (and ignoring what professionals would call "grooming" when looked at through a favorable lens).
What’s interesting about this is that the boy told Alycia Chambers that he and Sandusky were alone in the building, and there isn’t any supporting evidence that I’ve been able to find to support Seasock’s determination that there was another person present. There isn’t any reference to any other person present in either Chambers’ report, the university PD’s police report, or Gary Schultz’s handwritten notes that he made in 1998.
I think you worship Paterno and the PSU football program. It's a poor replacement.